Angry at Government latest on water pollution

Boadicea

Doesn't matter which government is in power.
They don't really run the country, big business does.

Business provides the jobs, pays the taxes and enables bosses, employees and shareholders to pay taxes.

Doesn't matter which government is in power.
They don't really run the country, big business does.

Nationalisation to improve what wasn’t working so well in private business.
Privatisation to improve what wasn’t working so well in nationalised business. Re-Nationalisation is too expensive.

The water companies knew that more money was needed to improve the treatment works but the Tories through OFAWT repeatedly rejected those warnings. The politicians wanted to keep the water bills down you can’t do that and improve the system at the same time.

Its acknowledged that there has been a lack of investment for many years, the water companies are willing to do the work but they cant until government provides the money. That money has got to be borrowed at market rates, that’s not going to happen without government backing.

Looking at Thames finances it made £75m surplus in 2024 on a turnover of £2.1 billion it also paid out £45m dividends not to external shareholders but to their financing company to cover their debts. These are fractions of 1% there is no money within the business to reinvest it all has to come from water bills (or government subsidies). Whether the money needed to reinvest is borrowed by government or by Thames its going to cost 4% plus, maybe if water bills rise by 50% over the next few years improvements will be made.

To nationalise Thames is estimated to cost £90 billion is addition another £100 billion is needed to fund improvements, all of this would have to be borrowed by government, understandably they don’t want to do that.

David49

missdeke

I was listening to Emma Hardy speaking about the water companies and the problems that have arisen through continued lack of investment. I must say I have never seen a Minister answer questions so openly and directly. She outlined the dificulties and problems that would be faced in renationalisation and why it's just not feasible now. She also was quite direct in how she has responded to the Water companies who have been getting past the 'no bonuses' for executives making so much money without dealing with leaks and sewage overspills. Apparently they are to have their basic wages doubled instead!!! and she is hoping to have the powers to deal with that soon.

It’s not just the water industry, private finance in general has the same problem - controlling the companies that do the work. A commercial company only exists to make money for its shareholders, the directors are paid to do that as efficiently as possible.

It’s is not going to tender for a project unless there is a profit in it for them, completing that project they are going to employ other companies and sub contractors with the same aim. They also need to borrow money to fund the project, interest has to be paid on that and the capital repaid.

Controlling costs is a big problem for a government that needs a service done and it’s clear that reducing costs has had priority over maintaining service. Thats a political decision but now politics is being brought to account for neglecting river quality, we can only hope that governments maintain commitment and reach the target in 10 yrs time.

It’s not an easy target to achieve, because the problem is so diverse.

Obviously businesses of any sort are in it to make money, whether you are big or small, but you've got to admit that executives of companies that are performing badly generally are on high salaries and that paying them huge bonuses for poor performance does go against the grain, somewhat. Any Government has an unenviable job trying to sort out these messes and the chances are that they won't be in government for long enough to actually even attempt to sort out the problem.

David, I don't understand your post yesterday. You suggest that the problems of the water supplies at due to " underinvestment by the government". How is this so?
Water companies are businesses, whose goal is to make money for their shareholders, and therein lies the dilemma. The government has no say in how they reward shareholders and employees. How, then, are they responsible for the shortcomings of this organisation?

missdeke

I was listening to Emma Hardy speaking about the water companies and the problems that have arisen through continued lack of investment. I must say I have never seen a Minister answer questions so openly and directly. She outlined the dificulties and problems that would be faced in renationalisation and why it's just not feasible now. She also was quite direct in how she has responded to the Water companies who have been getting past the 'no bonuses' for executives making so much money without dealing with leaks and sewage overspills. Apparently they are to have their basic wages doubled instead!!! and she is hoping to have the powers to deal with that soon.

It’s not just the water industry, private finance in general has the same problem - controlling the companies that do the work. A commercial company only exists to make money for its shareholders, the directors are paid to do that as efficiently as possible.

It’s is not going to tender for a project unless there is a profit in it for them, completing that project they are going to employ other companies and sub contractors with the same aim. They also need to borrow money to fund the project, interest has to be paid on that and the capital repaid.

Controlling costs is a big problem for a government that needs a service done and it’s clear that reducing costs has had priority over maintaining service. Thats a political decision but now politics is being brought to account for neglecting river quality, we can only hope that governments maintain commitment and reach the target in 10 yrs time.

It’s not an easy target to achieve, because the problem is so diverse.

Hopefully any Thatcher fans still around will finally admit her crushing mistakes re privatisation???

Just about nobody likes what happened to trains, here, that was Mrs T's brainchild, albeit implemented by someone else with delusions of competence, John Major. (if anyone wants to defend him, look up 'Black Wednesday', when he, Hezza & Lamont tried to bankrupt the country!).

Oh, and I'm picking on Tory incompetence, but after some 7 voting decades, I've no faith in politicos of any badge. The grooming gangs scandals, in various parts of the country over many years, pretty much only happens in Labour council areas. Starmer's Govt, swept in on a wave of optimism, has swiftly shown they're clueless, with chaotic own goals re winter fuel and the benefits U-turns, plus that barmy promise to end illegal immigration within days.

Oh I really hope so...

I was listening to Emma Hardy speaking about the water companies and the problems that have arisen through continued lack of investment. I must say I have never seen a Minister answer questions so openly and directly. She outlined the dificulties and problems that would be faced in renationalisation and why it's just not feasible now. She also was quite direct in how she has responded to the Water companies who have been getting past the 'no bonuses' for executives making so much money without dealing with leaks and sewage overspills. Apparently they are to have their basic wages doubled instead!!! and she is hoping to have the powers to deal with that soon.

Cronesrule. I just cannot figure out why 16/17 shoujd be given tge right to vote when they are still regarded and referred to as children. The laws applicable up until age 18 are to deal with children. Why then are they considered mature enough to vote in decisions that can affect a whole country. I am aware in Scotland 16/17 years old can vote in local elections. Last I read albeit a few years ago, very few voted. KS perhaps trying the same tactic as NS trying to get young naive people to vote for their party.

Whitewavemark2

I might say that a lot of the money for this river clean-up came from Europe pre-Brexit.

Grant applied for and given.

What folk forget is that the UK was a net contributor to the EU coffers. No wonder teeth were gnashing when we voted to Leave. Yes we got pocket money back for ‘projects’ if the EU agreed.

Erm, no thanks.
I’d rather we kept our subscription. That ship has sailed though so like many others what we can’t change we have to mentally accept. Hey ho.

😬

So what is your answer?

Grantanow

Privatisation by the Tories is very expensive to reverse through nationalisation but I think the reason Labour won't nationalise water is they will then get blamed for water shortages, sewage pollution, etc., whereas now people blame the water companies. Tighter regulation with criminal sanctions is the answer though I suspect fines and other costs will be passed on to the customers.

Totally unrealistic, better regulation but you can’t jail someone because the government hasn’t provided enough money to make the improvements. The industry has been underinvesting for decades, overflows are not going to stop until treatment plants are enlarged and better drainage to separate storm water from sewage. That takes time, frankly I will be surprised if ANY improvements are made in 5 yrs

Privatisation by the Tories is very expensive to reverse through nationalisation but I think the reason Labour won't nationalise water is they will then get blamed for water shortages, sewage pollution, etc., whereas now people blame the water companies. Tighter regulation with criminal sanctions is the answer though I suspect fines and other costs will be passed on to the customers.

I can't understand why people didn't see this coming during privatisation.

We were all supposed to invest our small savings in these companies and would therefore be 'stakeholders' in these utilities.

I knew it was a con- but other people saw the chance to get rich quick, and then richer, and richer, and richer... all paid for by us suckers!!

At least the government are recognising the scale of the issue and yes, a lot of funding for these improvement projects did come from the EU.

Somehow, people believed we could somehow do without these subsidies and it was ok for us to pay more and help the rich shareholders get richer and richer.

I despair, not of my country, but of some of the people who live in it. They are really quite stupid at times.

Whichever party is in power this issue isn't going to go away. There are no magic wands- just a long slow slog until people realise they were sold down the river by a succession of governments.

We have to suck it up, because there is no will to hold those who continue to profit by the misery of others to account. They are just going to continue buying their luxury yachts and laughing at all us idiots swimming around in sewage...

Ilovecheese

It is not going to happen as long as our water is in the hands of profit maximising organisations.
If that doesn't change nothing else will.

That is an obvious point I had not thought of.

Ilovecheese

It is not going to happen as long as our water is in the hands of profit maximising organisations.
If that doesn't change nothing else will.

The government has ruled out nationalization, that bird has already flown, its not just the cost of a take over, it’s the additional cost of improvements.

It is not going to happen as long as our water is in the hands of profit maximising organisations.
If that doesn't change nothing else will.

Cadenza123

Yes, it's a pathetic target. The target timescale should be halved.

That’s not going to happen because billions have to be spent to achieve a small improvement, all in addition to maintenence of an ageing existing system.
We have to catch up on 20+ years of underinvestment that’s not going to happen overnight

Yes, it's a pathetic target. The target timescale should be halved.

I might say that a lot of the money for this river clean-up came from Europe pre-Brexit.

Grant applied for and given.

My son is pessimistic, but tbh he has very little faith in any government when dealing with the environment.

So I’m waiting to hear from him.

He has been fighting the pollution of our seas and waterways for years, but simply doesn’t have the power to deal with the water companies that will force them to desist.

What I get so annoyed about is that it is the tax payer that foots the bill every time for the damage being done.

So an example would be a river that was turned around - restocked, came alive and was nourishing all the species under its care, including water voles, otters , myriad fish and plant life . Millions of £s were spent on this project.

It doesn’t take much imagination to understand what happened.

It is devastating to those working on these projects.

Whitewavemark2

It appears that very little extra power is likely to be given to the regulators like the replacement of OFWAT and EA.

Until they are given real teeth to deal with this, things will not change.

However let’s see what comes out if the report.

Will the Water Ombudsman have those powers, do you think?